AuthorTopic: anyone here thinks LSAT is easy? (Read 22767 times)

There are so many tasks out there that with proper preparation are probably easy. If you went up to most Americans on the street and told them they had to run a marathon, they'd think that would be an incredibly difficult task. However, take those people and train them for a few years and they may find that the marathon was not hard at all. Ultimately, I think you have to determine difficulty by general consensus, not by the top of the bell curve.

I've been following this thread for a while and I agree with queencruella's metaphor. However I think the LSAT is like asking the guy on the street to not only run a marathon, but do it with a good finish time. The LSAT tests logical reasoning, reading comp, etc. under a very tough time requirement. Red might be able to teach anyone to get a perfect score, but I don't think that anyone could get a perfect score in the time allotted. Daveman touched on it as well. The questions would be easy, if it weren't for the punishing time restrictions.

Well, it isn't an argument, per se, but why should it be discounted as evidence? If a large number of people over a long period of time consistently fail to do something into which they invest considerable effort, it seems fair to say that it is not in any meaningful sense possible for them to do it. I'm guessing you'll take issue with "large number," "long period of time" and "considerable effort" in that last sentence. So why don't you name your terms? What would be a sufficient number of people, length of time and investment of effort to disprove your thesis?

(Please excuse me if I missed your response in my quick review of the pages and pages of posts I missed.)

Me too .

Oh, you know I'll get to it. This will be easier than the LSAT (if that's possible).

Logged

redemption

There are so many tasks out there that with proper preparation are probably easy. If you went up to most Americans on the street and told them they had to run a marathon, they'd think that would be an incredibly difficult task. However, take those people and train them for a few years and they may find that the marathon was not hard at all. Ultimately, I think you have to determine difficulty by general consensus, not by the top of the bell curve.

I've been following this thread for a while and I agree with queencruella's metaphor. However I think the LSAT is like asking the guy on the street to not only run a marathon, but do it with a good finish time. The LSAT tests logical reasoning, reading comp, etc. under a very tough time requirement. Red might be able to teach anyone to get a perfect score, but I don't think that anyone could get a perfect score in the time allotted. Daveman touched on it as well. The questions would be easy, if it weren't for the punishing time restrictions.

You get more than a minute per question. Not entirely sure that that's very tough.

Well, it isn't an argument, per se, but why should it be discounted as evidence? If a large number of people over a long period of time consistently fail to do something into which they invest considerable effort, it seems fair to say that it is not in any meaningful sense possible for them to do it. I'm guessing you'll take issue with "large number," "long period of time" and "considerable effort" in that last sentence. So why don't you name your terms? What would be a sufficient number of people, length of time and investment of effort to disprove your thesis?

(Please excuse me if I missed your response in my quick review of the pages and pages of posts I missed.)

Me too .

Oh, you know I'll get to it. This will be easier than the LSAT (if that's possible).

Well, it isn't an argument, per se, but why should it be discounted as evidence? If a large number of people over a long period of time consistently fail to do something into which they invest considerable effort, it seems fair to say that it is not in any meaningful sense possible for them to do it. I'm guessing you'll take issue with "large number," "long period of time" and "considerable effort" in that last sentence. So why don't you name your terms? What would be a sufficient number of people, length of time and investment of effort to disprove your thesis?

(Please excuse me if I missed your response in my quick review of the pages and pages of posts I missed.)

Me too .

Oh, you know I'll get to it. This will be easier than the LSAT (if that's possible).

The suspense is killing me (not a bitchy comment; I swear).

LOL I'm glad you said it, for I certainly couldn't have gotten away with it!

There are so many tasks out there that with proper preparation are probably easy. If you went up to most Americans on the street and told them they had to run a marathon, they'd think that would be an incredibly difficult task. However, take those people and train them for a few years and they may find that the marathon was not hard at all. Ultimately, I think you have to determine difficulty by general consensus, not by the top of the bell curve.

I've been following this thread for a while and I agree with queencruella's metaphor. However I think the LSAT is like asking the guy on the street to not only run a marathon, but do it with a good finish time. The LSAT tests logical reasoning, reading comp, etc. under a very tough time requirement. Red might be able to teach anyone to get a perfect score, but I don't think that anyone could get a perfect score in the time allotted. Daveman touched on it as well. The questions would be easy, if it weren't for the punishing time restrictions.

You get more than a minute per question. Not entirely sure that that's very tough.

It isn't that you need more than a minute to answer one of the questions, it is that you have to sustain the concentration level for 4+ hours. I just didn't find the questions, especially the games, that compelling. I had to work just to keep my attention and andenaline up to keep knocking them out. I ended up sputtering out at the end of my second section, LG, before the break, then rallying and finishing well for the final 3 sections.

magnumalv

It isn't that you need more than a minute to answer one of the questions, it is that you have to sustain the concentration level for 4+ hours. I just didn't find the questions, especially the games, that compelling. I had to work just to keep my attention and andenaline up to keep knocking them out. I ended up sputtering out at the end of my second section, LG, before the break, then rallying and finishing well for the final 3 sections.